Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Response to CCSD's Exam of Gun Permission Policy

Though it is late in coming, we welcome CCSD’s
policy examination of allowing willing participants to carry handguns on
campus and dramatically reduce the risk of mass shootings. We sincerely hope
that they will adopt a sensible, well-thought out, practical policy that is as
inclusive of as many teachers, staff members, and parents as possible.

We do note a tone of trepidation and fear in the memo. Administrators
have nothing to fear from people who willingly seek to protect themselves and
others at schools. Concealed carriers are among the most law abiding segment of
the population. Firearm accidents by concealed carriers at schools are
extraordinarily rare.

A reasonable interpretation of state firearm preemption
laws, NRS 202.265 (school firearms ban), and public employer law would conclude
that schools have the ability to dictate guidelines to its principals and staff
regarding carry on school ground. NRS
386.360, dating from AB 346 of 1989 which created the first school gun ban,
required trustees to set rules granting permission to carry firearms on campus.
It is unclear if any ever did that, however, this law was repealed and no
longer exists. What is clear is that no
reasonable interpretation of the law allows conditions to be set upon
non-employees carrying on campus, other than permission is required.

The memo raises several concerns. Here are our responses:

Types of weapons:
concealable handguns should not be restricted in any manner. Rifles and
shotguns would require secure storage and are not practical for all but police
officers or dedicated security officers to possess.

Schools have no business dictating what type of handgun,
caliber, cartridge, etc. should be allowed other than the firearm can be
completely concealed. Some may feel comfortable with just a .22 Magnum
revolver, which would be better than nothing.

Background checks:
A valid concealed firearm permit and standard hiring background check would be
sufficient. Pre-carry background checks cannot identify ill-intent of anyone.
For instance, there is no background check that can detect if a teacher is
trying to sleep with his or her students.

Training: Any
additional training should be tactics and skill based. If legislators (in
particular) or local officials want to add on additional training requirements,
the curriculum should be uniform and practical. For instance, marksmanship
requirements and an action-style shoot. Example:

Grouping of six inches or less at 25 yards

Shoot the head of a hostage-type target at 10 yards (length
of a class room)

Fire/don’t fire exercise using simulator or live-action
exercise

Such criteria could be the responsibility of the Nevada
Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, as the CFP and instructor criteria is, or DPS.
This way, it is uniform across the state and something that can help reduce the
fears that people might have that a poor shooter might hit an innocent student
instead of the bad guy. Certainly prior law enforcement experience or being a
veteran should not be a requirement to carry.

Open carry vs.
concealed carry: Teachers openly carrying is not a good idea. Concealed
firearm permittees should be permitted to carry concealed on campus. However,
future legislative changes should remove restrictions for any parent or other
authorized person on campus from carrying any way they wish. Employer
restrictions on teachers, staff, and volunteers should be the only restrictions
on mode of carry.

Liability: Individuals
should assume the risk if they carry and misuse a firearm on campus.
Individuals misdeeds should remain the problem of the individual. Future
legislative changes can address liability better. In the short term, the
state policy should be looked to as an example.

A few items of note. First, the “teacher” who negligently
discharged a firearm is also a reserve police officer, a detail that gets
buried in most stories. He should have known better to draw a firearm at all.
This man should be fired from both teaching and policing and arrested for
unlawful discharge of a firearm and potentially child endangerment. Not every
qualification and precaution will ensure safety, but the very small risk is
worth the benefit.

Second, the other teacher that went nuts in his classroom could happen
anywhere. A teacher committing a violent, criminal act on campus is no
different than a teacher that molests a student. The act is the responsibility
of the criminal, ensuring the district had no way of knowing of criminal
proclivities beforehand. Financial liabilities for accidents and criminal
misuse pale in comparison to the priceless cost of human lives.

Guns in the hands of good guys save lives. We cannot afford
to continue throwing up arbitrary barriers to allowing willing participants to
stop mass murderers. Nevada needs to drastically amend NRS 202.265 to allow
parents, teachers, and college students to defend their lives with the most
effective means possible.

1 comment:

For those worried about negligent discharges, a designated safety officer should inspect the teacher's carry rig to make sure it follows the three big rules of holster safety: 1. It completely covers the trigger 2. It securely retains the gun 3. It permits a full firing grip.